Disappointed with Nelson's talk

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't think the revealed knowledge on this subject justifies such a harsh position.

He may know, but I don't. I pay attention to the revelations on the next life, and it's pretty hazy to me.

LOL. So from your self-admitted ignorant point of view, he's wrong?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Talks are available online at lds.org starting tomorrow.

Suckas!

Like you're gonna read 'em.

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't think the revealed knowledge on this subject justifies such a harsh position.

He may know, but I don't.

Here's the offending quote:

Such reward requires more than a hopeful wish. On occasion I read in a newspaper obituary of an expectation that a recent death has reunited that person with a deceased spouse, when in fact, they did not choose the eternal option. Instead, they opted for a marriage that was valid only as long as they both should live. Heavenly Father had offered them a supernal gift, but they refused it, and in rejecting the gift, they rejected the giver of the gift.

One strong sentence of scripture clearly distinguishes between a hopeful wish and eternal truth: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead." (D&C 132:19)

Seems like that's doctrine straight out of the scriptures, and by using words like "in fact" and "clearly distinguishes," Elder Nelson wants to leave you with no room for the wrong impression.

Parenthetically, I actually thought this line might ruffle some feathers here. I was surprised no one said anything.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Like you're gonna read 'em.



Here's the offending quote:



Seems like that's doctrine straight out of the scriptures, and by using words like "in fact" and "clearly distinguishes," Elder Nelson wants to leave you with no room for the wrong impression.

Parenthetically, I actually thought this line might ruffle some feathers here. I was surprised no one said anything.

I didn't see anything in that scripture ruling out a possible reuniting of a spouses that weren't sealed, did you?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I didn't see anything in that scripture ruling out a possible reuniting of a spouses that weren't sealed, did you?

What do you think "until death do us part" means? Or "of no efficacy"?

[jay santos]

PS I knew Indy and Tex would be all over this. You guys love the gospel of kicking people when they're down.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

PS I knew Indy and Tex would be all over this. You guys love the gospel of kicking people when they're down.

"Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor."

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

PS I knew Indy and Tex would be all over this. You guys love the gospel of kicking people when they're down.

What a ridiculous characterization. I'm not kicking anybody. I don't make the rules. However, I do believe that Elder Nelson has a better fix on what the rules are than you or I do for this particular matter.

Do I rejoice in the concept that people cannot be united eternally without being sealed and/or failing to live up to their covenants? No. In fact, I have close family members I worry about because of this.

Heck, I worry about my own marriage and whether or not I'm sufficiently keeping up my end of the bargain.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What a ridiculous characterization. I'm not kicking anybody. I don't make the rules. However, I do believe that Elder Nelson has a better fix on what the rules are than you or I do for this particular matter.

Do I rejoice in the concept that people cannot be united eternally without being sealed and/or failing to live up to their covenants? No. In fact, I have close family members I worry about because of this.

Heck, I worry about my own marriage and whether or not I'm sufficiently keeping up my end of the bargain.

Notice I've never suggested people can "be united eternally without being sealed and/or failing to live up to their covenants".

I just have an extreme problem with people speaking with certainty of items 1,2,3 from previous post.

[SeattleUte]

I apologize. After reading Tex's quotation of the speech I see I have no dog in this fight.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Notice I've never suggested people can "be united eternally without being sealed and/or failing to live up to their covenants".

I just have an extreme problem with people speaking with certainty of items 1,2,3 from previous post.

Is there some reason you're fixating on the temporary prison/paradise phase of our existence? What does some sliver of "time" compare to the ensuing eternities?